| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm... let me put it this way.
1. We have established multiple creatures with 'weak point' targeting already. There are of course more but this is not an 'one and done' deal. So mechanically it's really not as 'odd' or 'bad' as being suggested. Is a 'normal/every monster' thing? No. But neither is various auras, or spell casting or any number of other abilities so getting upset on this one is a bit meh in my opinion.
2. The idea of targeting specific parts (in this case weaponry) of a creature is long standing -- a point made by the fact you had to explicitly target the hydra's heads, and even in the myth the heads were specifically targeted. So we have reason even not mechanically to allow it. In fact the only real difference between a hydra and say any other fast healing/ regenerating creature is the number of attacks and how you can reduce them.
3. If every creature was mechanically the same there would be no point in having a bestiary. Yes there is themes among monsters, and some monsters are simply bigger badder versions of other monsters, but most monsters are different and vary in how the rules treat them or have unique mechanics (say the hellcat for example).
Which is to say:
This mechanic is not completely unique, it is not without mythological or real precedent, and we have a regular source of uniqueness among monsters spawned by unique or semi-unique mechanics to boot.
And people/creatures about these things seemingly inherently in the game. Perhaps it's like when someone casts a spell and they just 'give off that look' or what not and people look at the hydra's necks and think "those look rather easy to cut off."
So I don't really see the fuss. I'm not saying you aren't fussing, I'm not saying you don't see the fuss. I mean if the only way to kill the hydra was the head cutting thing I would be with you on it being odd -- but as is it's a mechanical features that rewards different playing styles.
You don't have to simply reduce it's pool of HP.
And call me crazy but I thought rewarding different play styles and giving people more than one way to go about things was something we are supposed to encourage with role playing games?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, by default you can try to severe any neck from any monster, because it's a rpg, you can try what your want. Every other monster happen to have a secret rule which is an invisible aura of mental domination that forbids your to try. No save. Hydra is one of the few without that aura. Beholders in DnD had the same
My point is that whenever you try to stay 'true' to the mythology of a creature that has a basis in external literature, you'll sometimes encounter abilities or characteristics that don't quite fit nicely into the typical Pathfinder rules system.
You have two options, modify/abandon those characteristics or jury-rig the Pathfinder rules. IMO, the second is preferred when those characteristics are what make a monster unique and interesting.
I would also take exception to your dismissal of the peach tree mechanic. Where in the rules is there any mention regarding the ability to obtain or otherwise specify the manufacture of weapons from peach tree wood?
That's a 100% valid point of view and one that I simultaneously disagree with entirely.
My preferred solution would be fix the system so that it can model what's being presented without breaking internal consistency (ie. in this case create and run a hit location system). I absolutely admit that this is more work than most DMs want to do and that's fine. I also admit that I'm still tinkering trying to find/make one I like.
As to the peach wood... yes... that is in fact technicaly correct *sigh*. By RAW it references a material that doesn't specifically exist... but I truly hope you're being purposefully obtuse. Calling out every single possible material something could be made of would be ridiculous and trusting the DM to decide if something could or could not be made of peach wood and how difficult/costly it is or isn't to acquire hardly seems out of line to me. Fun fact, not sure exactly when they showed up but for a good long while there were no pathfinder stats for a wooden stake. Did they not exist till they appeared in a splat book? Also I can't find a specific price for garlic... does it not exist? If either of those answers are no then we're done talking because our gaming sensibilities are too different to ever find common ground.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that whenever you try to stay 'true' to the mythology of a creature that has a basis in external literature, you'll sometimes encounter abilities or characteristics that don't quite fit nicely into the typical Pathfinder rules system.
You have two options, modify/abandon those characteristics or jury-rig the Pathfinder rules. IMO, the second is preferred when those characteristics are what make a monster unique and interesting.
I would also take exception to your dismissal of the peach tree mechanic. Where in the rules is there any mention regarding the ability to obtain or otherwise specify the manufacture of weapons from peach tree wood?
That's a 100% valid point of view and one that I simultaneously disagree with entirely.
My preferred solution would be fix the system so that it can model what's being presented without breaking internal consistency (ie. in this case create and run a hit location system). I absolutely admit that this is more work than most DMs want to do and that's fine. I also admit that I'm still tinkering trying to find/make one I like.
As to the peach wood... yes... that is in fact technicaly correct *sigh*. By RAW it references a material that doesn't specifically exist... but I truly hope you're being purposefully obtuse. Calling out every single possible material something could be made of would be ridiculous and trusting the DM to decide if something could or could not be made of peach wood and how difficult/costly it is or isn't to acquire hardly seems out of line to me. Fun fact, not sure exactly when they showed up but for a good long while there were no pathfinder stats for a wooden stake. Did they not exist till they appeared in a splat book? Also I can't find a specific price for garlic... does it not exist? If either of those answers are no then we're done talking because our gaming sensibilities are too different to ever find common ground.
- Torger
Hm... let me put it this way.
1. We have established multiple creatures with 'weak point' targeting already. There are of course more but this is not an 'one and done' deal. So mechanically it's really not as 'odd' or 'bad' as being suggested. Is a 'normal/every monster' thing? No. But neither is various auras, or spell casting or any number of other abilities so getting upset on this one is a bit meh in my opinion.
2. The idea of targeting specific parts (in this case weaponry) of a creature is long standing -- a point made by the fact you had to explicitly target the hydra's heads, and even in the myth the heads were specifically targeted. So we have reason even not mechanically to allow it. In fact the only real difference between a hydra and say any other fast healing/ regenerating creature is the number of attacks and how you can reduce them.
3. If every creature was mechanically the same there would be no point in having a bestiary. Yes there is themes among monsters, and some monsters are simply bigger badder versions of other monsters, but most monsters are different and vary in how the rules treat them or have unique mechanics (say the hellcat for example).
Which is to say:
This mechanic is not completely unique, it is not without mythological or real precedent, and we have a regular source of uniqueness among monsters spawned by unique or semi-unique mechanics to boot.
And people/creatures know about these things seemingly inherently in the game. Perhaps it's like when someone casts a spell and they just 'give off that look' or what not and people look at the hydra's necks and think "those look rather easy to cut off."
So I don't really see the fuss. I'm not saying you aren't fussing, I'm not saying you don't see the fuss. I mean if the only way to kill the hydra was the head cutting thing I would be with you on it being odd -- but as is it's a mechanical features that rewards different playing styles.
You don't have to simply reduce it's pool of HP.
And call me crazy but I thought rewarding different play styles and giving people more than one way to go about things was something we are supposed to encourage with role playing games?
1) Yes there are others that operate the same way. I'm not arguing that fact. I dislike them all equally. But this thread is about Hydras.
2) By that logic we've no reason to not allow attacking a Chimera's head separately but we can't so back to the core inconsistency that I very much dislike. For the record my position this whole times has been hit locations for all or hit locations for none.
3) That's a gross exaggeration. There are many many monsters with many many special abilities that don't fundamentally change they way we know combat to work.
You call it a mechanical feature that rewards different playing styles. If that's what I saw it as I would applaud it but I don't.
I see it as a bug in the system that sharply calls to light glaring inconsistencies.
Same with the AoO on the Stilled/Silent/Eschew Materials spell that you brought up earlier.
As I said in the above post my preferred solution is to try and fix the bugs when they crop up. Sometimes it's easy. (Of course you don't get an AoO against that spell. Why would you. That's dumb. House rule enacted). Sometimes it's insanely difficult (oh god hit locations in a game not created for it that are both fun and not overpowering @_@ where to eve start.) But I'd rather try to fix then accept mechanics I don't like.
- Torger
Garlic and garlic tablets.
*rolls eyes* great, did those not exist before the adventurers armory and undead slayer's handbook came out? Will a splat book eventually provide stats for peach wood and suddenly the hardcore RAWers will be fine with the Jang-Shi's stat block?
That you found stats that I missed in no way invalidates my point.
- Torger
So, how would you rewrite the Hydra?
Excellent question! and one I've been grappling with for editions now.
As I've stated my preferred solution would be to remove the offending ability and create a good called shot/hit location system. But operating from the assumption that we don't want a system overhaul that major the best I've come up with is similar to the OPs.
First I would apply a blanket rule to the system that if you wish to avoid targeting a specific location on a creature you may do so at a penalty to attack rolls lets say -4 (actual value could be changed but we'll call that a place holder) possibly modified by size either of the creature or the specific area.
Choosing to exercise that option against a hydra means you don't risk severing a head.
Attacking the Hydra normally with a slashing weapon you risk severing a head if you deal X or more damage (a fairly low percentage of it's total HP) the Hydra makes a fort save DC (something related to more damage = harder save), it would be difficult for the creature to succeed at but I'd like it to be possible. Failure means a head has been severed.
I'd leave the stuff about head regrowing alone. Also the stuff about searing the stumps.
Pros:
- There's no longer a mechanical equivalence between wrecking items, (which in my head is something a bludgeoning weapon would often be well suited towards) and severing a neck.
- Level appropriate melees will still be able to succeed at severing heads most of the time so there's still a choice of tactics.
- The mechanics of how to avoid severing heads are clearly spelled out to all players. Everyone knows how that works. And it has symmetry with the rules for firing into melee without risking a hit to your allies.
- The mechanics for severing heads feels the same as the way your character has always been severing heads. Attack it till I sever it's head.
Cons:
- It still begs the question why can't I force a fort save to sever the heads of other creatures with multiple heads. Or even why can't I force a fort save to remove a limb.
- Searing a stump with single target ranged touch attack acid or fire damage still essentially creates hit location rules that don't exist for anything else.
- If making Sunder a more valuable ability was important to you that's gone entirely.
As you can see the best solution I've come up with still doesn't meet my own criteria, thus my continued frustration with this monster and why I was excited about this thread. I'd love to hear any mechanical solutions people might be able to come up with that do.
More related to the OP than my specific concern I'd probably also beef it up a touch in the HP department but that's tangential to what I was trying to address.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also because text across the internet can come off as unintentionally adversarial I feel compelled to add the following.
This is the sort of thing that bothers people with a particular set of gaming priorities and doesn't bother at all people with a different set of gaming priorities.
And that's perfectly fine. Playing the Hydra as written and everyone at the table having a great time with it is fantastic and could certainly never be "bad or wrong".
I say this with the full realization that I've categorized the way the monster functions as bad. My intent has always been to convey bad for me and my gaming group. Which should have no impact what so ever on it's quality for any other gaming group, but that's a lot to type each time.
Just in case there was any confusion.
- Torger
My preferred solution would be fix the system so that it can model what's being presented without breaking internal consistency (ie. in this case create and run a hit location system). I absolutely admit that this is more work than most DMs want to do and that's fine. I also admit that I'm still tinkering trying to find/make one I like.
I don't think that's possible. For a combat against Hydras that resemble the myth, heads must be "easy" to cut. In fact, no less than 7 times in the span of a normal combat. If heads are THAT easy to cut, then, say, dragons, would be extremely easy to kill.
I disagree with the idea that you need to make a regular rule that allow you to sever the head of every monster just to make the Hydra fight to look like it was in the myth. YMMV, of course
I don't think that's possible. For a combat against Hydras that resemble the myth, heads must be "easy" to cut. In fact, no less than 7 times in the span of a normal combat. If heads are THAT easy to cut, then, say, dragons, would be extremely easy to kill.
I disagree with the idea that you need to make a regular rule that allow you to sever the head of every monster just to make the Hydra fight to look like it was in the myth. YMMV, of course
Keep in mind that the fight between Hercules and the Hydra was one dude soloing (arguably with the help of a torch bearing cohort) a single monster.
In other words he was way over leveled. Maybe it was easy(ish) for him but for a level appropriate full party it might not be.
It's also possible that the monster could have special susceptibly to called shots. Thus making it feel exactly the same as called shotting anything else but including an under the hood solution to make it more possible.
Regardless there are so many ways to approach the topic of called shots and hit locations I'm not willing to throw it completely under the buss as impossible.
And yes, MM does V. To my mind I can either try to sever necks or I can't. Either is acceptable but special rules to allow it only against a certain monster feels janky as hell to me.
It clearly doesn't bother some people and that's fine.
- Torger
In other words he was way over leveled.
Aside from Deities and Demigods, this is the only interpretation of Herc that I've ever seen that took this stance.
In other words he was way over leveled.Aside from Deities and Demigods, this is the only interpretation of Herc that I've ever seen that took this stance.
*shrug* either that or over geared. Don't see how else a single melee solos a monster meant to challenge a party. Or power gamer built I suppose. In any case he's likely significantly tougher than the melee who's but one of 4 people trying to take this creature down.
Either that or we accept that assigning stats and levels and mechanics to fictional (or mythological) characters will almost always end in disagreement.
Which is funny 'cause that's kinda what this whole thread has been about.
- Torger
I don't think that's possible. For a combat against Hydras that resemble the myth, heads must be "easy" to cut. In fact, no less than 7 times in the span of a normal combat. If heads are THAT easy to cut, then, say, dragons, would be extremely easy to kill.
I disagree with the idea that you need to make a regular rule that allow you to sever the head of every monster just to make the Hydra fight to look like it was in the myth. YMMV, of course
Keep in mind that the fight between Hercules and the Hydra was one dude soloing (arguably with the help of a torch bearing cohort) a single monster.
I don't think Hercules was so high level when he did that job, but that point aside, it's not relevant for the matter. The fight vs Hydra, if you want it to look like the myth, Hercules or not, involve people cutting 7+ heads in a short span of time (ie: a few combat rounds).
That gives us a couple of options.
a) we can make a fight where cutting heads is very difficult. Then it'll be a very long combat, or it will be resolved by some other method which doesn't follow the classic myth (like charm monster, or destroy the body with a fireball, etc)
b) we make a fight where you can cut 7+ heads in the expected time span of a regular Pathfinder encounter (ie: a few rounds). That means cutting a head HAS to be easy.
If you go with option b), to keep the fight resembling the myth, then we have 2 aditional options.
b1) the hydra itself has a rule to cut its heads, which is easy.
b2) cutting heads, in general, is easy.
With b2, every monster who can't survive the loss of a head will be easy pie.
Assuming b2) is undesirable, because we want our dragons to survive more than 1 round of called shots, that leaves us with 2 options: a), where you don't have a fight that looks like the myth, or b1), where the hydra has its own rules.
It's bassicaly the same idea that made most versions of DnD let PC to attack beholders' eyes, but not the eyes of any other monster.
I don't think that's possible. For a combat against Hydras that resemble the myth, heads must be "easy" to cut. In fact, no less than 7 times in the span of a normal combat. If heads are THAT easy to cut, then, say, dragons, would be extremely easy to kill.
I disagree with the idea that you need to make a regular rule that allow you to sever the head of every monster just to make the Hydra fight to look like it was in the myth. YMMV, of course
Keep in mind that the fight between Hercules and the Hydra was one dude soloing (arguably with the help of a torch bearing cohort) a single monster.
In other words he was way over leveled. Maybe it was easy(ish) for him but for a level appropriate full party it might not be.
It's also possible that the monster could have special susceptibly to called shots. Thus making it feel exactly the same as called shotting anything else but including an under the hood solution to make it more possible.
Regardless there are so many ways to approach the topic of called shots and hit locations I'm not willing to throw it completely under the buss as impossible.
And yes, MM does V. To my mind I can either try to sever necks or I can't. Either is acceptable but special rules to allow it only against a certain monster feels janky as hell to me.
It clearly doesn't bother some people and that's fine.
- Torger
He seemed undergeared even of over-leveled.
Remember he doesn't wear lots of armor.
I don't think Hercules was so high level when he did that job, but that point aside, it's not relevant for the matter. The fight vs Hydra, if you want it to look like the myth, Hercules or not, involve people cutting 7+ heads in a short span of time (ie: a few combat rounds).
That gives us a couple of options.
a) we can make a fight where cutting heads is very difficult. Then it'll be a very long combat, or it will be resolved by some other method which doesn't follow the classic myth (like charm monster, or destroy the body with a fireball, etc)
b) we make a fight where you can cut 7+ heads in the expected time span of a regular Pathfinder encounter (ie: a few rounds). That means cutting a head HAS to be easy.
If you go with option b), to keep the fight resembling the myth, then we have 2 aditional options.
b1) the hydra itself has a rule to cut its heads, which is easy.
b2) cutting heads, in general, is easy.
With b2, every monster who can't survive the loss of a head will be easy pie.
Assuming b2) is undesirable, because we want our dragons to survive more than 1 round of called shots, that leaves us with 2 options: a), where you don't have a fight that looks like the myth, or b1), where the hydra has its own rules.
It's bassicaly the same idea that made most versions of DnD let PC to attack beholders' eyes, but not the eyes of any other monster.
I get what you're saying. I even agree with much of it.
Here's what I'm saying
Either I can try to target specific body parts or I can't. End. Full Stop.
Those are the only two options that are acceptable to me.
If in order to preserve it's flavor the Hydra requires built in rules to make it easier to sever hydra necks than other necks that's fine, because that's under the hood and doesn't change the fundamentals of how combat work. As long as it is in fact possible to attempt the same thing on other creatures.
A monster having special exclusive rules to attempt to target body parts when it's completely impossible with the vast majority of other monster is not ok with me. Hydra's, Beholder's, Tentacle Beasts, whatever.
- Torger
Either I can try to target specific body parts or I can't. End. Full Stop.
Those are the only two options that are acceptable to me.
That's because you'd like the game to be a simulationist game, which isn't the focus of this game. This game is a gamist game, like previous versions of DnD, specially after 3.0
|
I actually modified the hydra.
it is now immune to acid damage.
Pyrohydras are immune to fire and acid, requiring cold or elecricity to burn the stumps.
Reverse for cryohydras. They are immune to cold and acid.
hydras have a a horribly corrosive spit, dealing 3D8+the hydras con modifer+the number of heads and sickened
reflex for half damage,negate the damage over time and sickened. Take 2D4+the above modifiers each round for 1D4 rounds
Also, attacking them with a piercing or slashing weapon causes a cone of acidic blood to spray out.
this deals damage to the weapon, the attacker if not using a reach weapon and anything in a five foot cone.
damage is 1D4+the amount of damage done.
Killing a hydras head with bludgeoning damage does not allow it to regenerate
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the idea that having a called-shot (or in this case Sunder) effect specific to one creature is frustrating.
In my games, I allow people to make called shots at no penalty, and they have no special effects... Vorpal is the only thing in the game that takes off heads, except for the Hydra!
It is an inconsistent monster (in that it has a rule unique to it that sounds like it should apply to other creatures), however, suspension of disbelief allows us to enjoy it being included in the game.
If it isn't tough enough, add heads/HD. Apply templates. Make it a half dragon!
But yes, I agree with OP that the system should either HAVE called shot rules (core) or not. Doing it on a case-by-case (or monster by monster) basis is jarring and takes something away from the game for me.
That being said, the Hydra is one of my favorite monsters. I like sending packs of them at the players, usually pyrohydras. :D
This thread makes me want to add the called shot mechanic into my game, but restrict it to martial classes... give the non-casters some much needed love.
That's because you'd like the game to be a simulationist game, which isn't the focus of this game. This game is a gamist game, like previous versions of DnD, specially after 3.0Either I can try to target specific body parts or I can't. End. Full Stop.
Those are the only two options that are acceptable to me.
How is allowing for the option that I can't target body parts ever across the board siumlationist?
How is expecting the core assumptions of how combat works to be consistent simulationist?
Sorry, nope, try again.
- Torger
*Edit* also the link you pointed me to lists the following as typical gamists games;
Magic: The Gathering, Chess, and most computer games.
Interesting how none of them are traditional pen and paper RPGs.
Perhaps all pen and paper RPGs have some intrinsic element of simulationism to them.
Perhaps defining D&D/Pathfinder as gamist has more to do with the table than it does with the rules.
Perhaps any pen and paper RPG game can be adapted to accommodate varying levels of gamist/narativist or simulationist play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Torger. Unique combat options that don't follow the established mechanical logic of the system are bad design from a gamist perspective. You might argue that it works or feels good from the narrative style of the monster, but one of the principles of the gamist aspect is consistency within the rules, which the hydra violates. In a video game, logic like this would be considered "cheap" and "unfair" because it expects you to follow logic that was not established, and even discouraged, in the core functionality of the game.
I agree with Torger. Unique combat options that don't follow the established mechanical logic of the system are bad design from a gamist perspective. You might argue that it works or feels good from the narrative style of the monster, but one of the principles of the gamist aspect is consistency within the rules, which the hydra violates. In a video game, logic like this would be considered "cheap" and "unfair" because it expects you to follow logic that was not established, and even discouraged, in the core functionality of the game.
Boo-ya!
- Torger